Hey, the youtube algorithm recommended your channel to me and I think for the first time in history it got it right. Your work is magnificent! I also do content about philosophy and I'm having a blast here. Much love from Brazil!
It's comforting to know that others like to think about these kinds of things. My family and friends roll their eyes most of the time if I start talking about subjects similar to this video.
yoo same, I can't talk to anyone abt this stuff and makes me feel so alone in my thinking, most of my friends think I'm crazy and the few that listen don't ever have any input
Was tripping on 4g of psilocybin last week and thought about so many things similar this video. I LOVE wanting to learn shit we really dont know, or understand. I appreciate all your content, such beautiful entertainment. Keep up that good work, you got this!
@@nickeltje its beautiful being able to learn stuff about myself, that I didn't know. I respect tripping, so I always do it safely. Have a wonderful day mate Greetings from shitty Indiana in the U.S💀
Problems of perception are the result of the primacy of existence. If the universe was based on the primacy of consciousness, there would be no distinction between the perceived and the perceiver
Well, it could be considered that this distinction is an illusion. Are you sure that there's actually a "perceiver"? How can you know that it's not just about perceptions and conscious experiences on its own? Are you sure that the "perceiver" is not just another idea or perception? Because if you look at it close enough, it actually seems to be like this.
We are just a part of universe evolved to have senses crucial to exist in our tiny bubble. With perception tuned to our environment. A true preciver of the universe would have the sense of each action, either visible, morphed or invisible for humans. We can just make observations about our own senses and its flaws.
Gunwant Bhambra How do you know we have senses? I don’t know if there is a way to tell the difference between senses and thought. How do you know an evil deceiver isn’t putting thoughts in your head and make you believe you are sending something?
@@duder6387 The brain-in-a-vat hypothesis has the same problems as the multiverse hypothesis, the Fermi Paradox, the simulation hypothesis, the belief in God: They are making too many baseless, unprovable, unfalsifiable assumptions. They are therefore *unscientific*
@@khai96x I have some issues with falsification theory. The biggest one being what’s called holistic underdetermination. Let’s say that we have a theory and then we encounter evidence which contradicts our theory, we are not required to doubt the theory, but rather we can doubt the background assumptions behind the theory. When we perform an experiment we make assumptions, we assume that our senses are working, we assume that our instruments are reliable, we assume that logic is correct, we assume that math works, etc. The issue is that we can doubt any of these assumptions before doubting our theory. If for example, I hypothesize that gravity isn’t real and then drop an object and see it fall I don’t have to doubt my hypothesis, I can doubt the validity of my senses, the validity of my instruments, the validity of my logic and so on and so forth. Let’s say I look at my instruments and see that nothing is wrong, I can then doubt my senses or I can postulate that there is something interfering with my experiment. This happened when Newtonian mechanics failed to predict Mercury’s orbit. We thought that there was some mass interfering with its orbit since something similar happened with Uranus’ orbit’s. Uranus’ orbit’s were different from what Newtonian mechanics predicted. Instead of doubting the theory they postulated that there was a planet interfering. They were correct, this led to the discovery of Neptune. In the case of Mercury, they thought that there was a planet they called “Vulcan” interfering. We never found the planet Vulcan, but how do we know that there isn’t some force interfering with Mercury’s orbit that we just don’t know about yet? Perhaps Newtonian mechanics is predicting something that general relativity can’t, we can never know for sure since we don’t have access to all the information. This makes all theories unfalsifiable since we can always doubt the background assumptions the theories are based on. For more I recommend going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and checking out its article on underdetermination. You may think that the skeptical scenarios are baseless but so are the axioms of logic and mathematics. There is no reason why we ought to believe in the principles of logic or mathematics, they are simply sets of rules we decide to follow. If we throw out these axioms because they are baseless and untestable then we throw out all of science. Don’t get me wrong I love science and I find it to be very useful, but I don’t see it as a form of truth or even an approximation of it.
Yeah I do like to think that things exist outside of our minds, but what we perceive is isn't necessarily reality itself, just our subjective experience of it. Other people might see, hear or feel things differently and even moreso for other living things. Not to mention certain things can affect our perception like for example someone who has never learned the words red and blue, might not be able to perceive those colours, or rather they might perceive them in a different way. And if you know anything about science, like quantum mechanics and stuff, you'll know that things are obviously not what they seem to us. We perceive things on a certain scale, so a table is a table to us, but if we were 1000x smaller for example, we'd perceive and think about things totally differently. Same for if we were 1000x bigger. So yeah, in a way I like to think that everything's an illusion of the mind, but not in the sense that it doesn't exist, just that we like to think of our perception as reality, while really it's just one very specific version of it.
This gave me an 8-track flashback from 1998 from a used vintage 1968 tape and some thc that I quit in 2012 to bring it to you now in 2021 ...that is for no reason, but this comment - ''nothing is real, Strawberry fields forever''
I know this wasn’t really the point of the video but I just wanted to say that I was feeling really down and suicidal even and this video helped, with reminding me that everything is based on perception. Things aren’t always as bad or hopeless as you think and even just a slight change of perception can make you view the whole world differently. I know that’s not the point of this video but I wanted to thank you regardless Otherwise anyway another 10/10 vid from you, you’ve become one of my favorite cc’s , keep it up , I can’t wait to see what you post in the future !
Makes more sense in examining the rules of construction we have when putting our sensory inputs together as the signals arrive in our brain at different intervals. For example, we construct "depth" and "distance" from color and size of known objects.
Wow this was the first video I saw on ur channel all those months back when u had like 200 subs and It was the video that caused me to watch all other videos on ur channel at the time. I loved that video but I can see the improvement in this one. Well done
Idealism would collapse onto solipsism if you consider consciousness to be individually divided. Panentheism, Pantheism and others assume a conscious universe, with several solutions for the combination problem. So, thatd be a bright option.
Indeed. I attended a fascinating lecture once that combined idealism with panpsychism, such that the entire universe would always watch itself, thus removing the need for God as an unperceived perceiver. It's an interesting solution to solipsism!
I thought this day would be a good day but now I have accidentally given myself a reasonable argument for the existence of god and now I have to lay in my the for the rest of the day and do nothing else than thinking about it. But still, it was a really good video that thought me a new way of looking at the problem of perception.
The God problem with idealism is a tricky one. On the one hand, if God does exist and guarantees the continued existence of our ideas, then idealism essentially logically follows. But, a lot of criticism has been placed on idealism for putting God in that role in the first place. God as the 'unperceived perceiver' is pretty different from the God of Abraham, who's just chilling outside of time and space. But, of course, idealism nevertheless does remain a possibility!
@@mystiverse ikr espaicily that our biology has horrible flaws that could have been easily fixed by the all perfect all knowing smartest being in the universe aka god and espaicily he allows us to suffer while he's omnipresent and all knowing he knows exactly how u feel and think yet he allows the suffering the murdered the rape and torturing and mental illnesses of ourselves and loved ones Of God exists He either all knowing and all present but evil He can be god but he's not all knowing and all present Or he doesn't exist at all
That's actually the worst argument to prove go exists. I'd say that god doesn't exist, as all logic points to that. And the Bible also says the world is 6k years old and has things like the Noah's ark and that's an outright joke. The only thing you can't disapprove or prove is god. But if everything needs a creator, who created god. So yeah the logical answer is, the bible is fiction and god is man made. Same applies to the Qur'an. People finna cancel me for calling out the Qur'an but Idc
@@mystiverse I think that the Abrahamic God is more of a metaphorical way of describing "The Creator". But the problem arises when you perceive the creative process as separate from yourself. Maybe we should consider the possibility that _the Creator_ and all of creation itself is One and the same.
I’m calling it now, this channel is going to have 1 million subscribers in a month. Finally a channel for intellectuals who likes to learn stuff while they’re getting hammered. TH-cam algorithm did it again.
Haven’t watched the full video but I already have a feeling this ties with creating your own realities (shoutout to those creating their own out there) and having different perceived realities, tying into law of attraction/vibration. Either way, this reality is nuts but magical.
Imagine someone born blind and deaf and quadriplegic what would his life be like never knowing reality. What would he dream of? Now imagine he regains his sight and hearing at age 30. How would he perceive reality? What are we if not awareness of sight and sound and location awareness of out bodies? Without any link to this world through our skin and eyes and ears? Who are we if not our eyes and ears? Without ever knowing this world?
If you haven’t already you should look up the Pyhrronian Skeptics. They have created some of the most destructive skeptical thought, I specifically am puzzled by Agrippa’s five modes or Agrippa’s/Munchaussen’s trilemma.
Yeah, Pyrrho was a wacko. Apparently he used to walk into busy streets or nearly off cliffs because he could doubt their existence. PSA: don't do that.
In my opinion the perception of the object it's just a part of how the object really is, like my red is different from your red but are both under the same scope of visible light we call red but still there is some light that is still emitted but we just can't see. So the object is always present and we just perceive some part of it. But you know nothing matters really we just a bunch of atoms that is unlucky enough to understand it
I’ve just accepted that this reality is just an elaborate dream and if you try to hard to make finite sense of it it falls apart in your lap because it’s job it to maintain the illusion rather than explain itself to us. I mean we’re all the same stuff rearranged so elaborately you can’t tell. And the specific arrangements are what we consider unique experiences.
What strikes me is odd is why would there be a split in reality between the contents of perception and that which is perceived; for example consider that the colors I see are only in my perception, whereas the apple which is in reality devoid of color, lives in a different sort of space time. Now naturally the question arises, that in what kind of space time do thoughts and perceptions about the color of the apple exist and how are they different from the space time that holds the apple. I am always tempted to take the side that there is no such split in reality, but it exists only as a philosophical point in our minds.
If the evil demon theory says that there is a being that knows every position and propulsion of every atom in the universe, is that being the universe itself for having that kind of knowledge?
Where and when is there an absolute separation between yourself and the world around you? Regardless of what rules of physics are in play, I never in my entire life felt that compartmentalized separation with absolute certainty (thank God!) and it's been key to gaining perceptions I trust. Trusting my own experience is a gift. Investment in myself, all reward. The compartmentalization without allowing a blending/melding throughout all these theories bars the truth from presenting itself.
It's true, Descartes really did cock everything up with his radical scepticism. And to be fair, some 20th century approaches like phenomenology solve a lot of the issues presented here.
Not arguing the validity of deterministic physics and it's role in mainstream concepts of consciousness. That can't be argued, 🙄! Victim-hood based consciousness IS Descarte et.al in full technicolor and on live stream NOW! My point is that even while being raised in the environment of it, it still is possible to gain and rely on a trusted source for oneself. There's no real forcing of these concepts/theories onto another person, other than by their acceptance. I'm not judging, I'm stating experientially gained knowledge, not theory or speculation either. Once something is recognized as insulting to one's senses it should be abandoned. If not, well, I remember those feelings and most live like that day after day till death. I finally put my foot down and said "No!" in totality just 3 years ago but a psychologically abusive family growing up has ended up being the alchemist gold guiding me to seek from within quite literally since birth. Anyways..."Don't accept what anyone says, not even what I say, so long as it resonates with one's soul"---Buddah
I'm a new subscriber. I really like your videos. Both entertaining and informative. Implicit in Realism and Idealism is You the Subject. As per the video the material objects are perceived so you're not those objects (sorry Realists). Your body is observed so you're not the body. Equally, your thoughts/feelings can be observed so you're not the mind (sorry idealists and solipsists). Even the moment of comprehension Eureka is observed so you're not the Intellect. Even self-awareness, introspection is observed so you're not the conscious awareness in the Mind. So what's left? Nihilism??? No. Because even "nihilism" is observed hence you can't be a Nihilist. You're "prior" to all of that.
Indeed, this is something like the anonymous pre-reflective self-awareness of the phenomenologists! Something that we're not necessarily conscious of but is nonetheless implicit in all our actions, the fundamental condition for any experiences at all.
@@mystiverse Absolutely. But note, the Real You is that Fundamental Reality, therefore the individual you which you currently take yourself to be, is not, though it appears to be so.
@@mystiverse Hahaha. 🙂 Can your doubts be observed? If yes then you're not your doubts. If one can say that That Fundamental Reality manifests a somewhat limited conscious awareness in the mind which does all this perceiving, thinking and commenting, which also makes us feel like an individual with limited abilities then what's stopping us from knowing our true nature as That Fundamental Reality? Can we say an Ignorance of sorts?
You can touch the table. Indirect realism is the most objective way to describe our perception. Primary qualities are absolute, no matter who percieves them
True, but aren't primary qualities also objective in idealism? You can touch the table, sure, but touch is a secondary quality, and without that, then we have no access to the table at all. If we accept the classic formulation of idealism, with God as the guarantor of our ideas, then isn't idealism just as objective?
@@mystiverse sensation of a touch is secondary, matter of fingers interacting with matter of the table is primary. The objective fact of you touching the table is a part of that sensation, even though it's a secondary quality. If you don't touch the table and take out all of the other secondary qualities then yes - table won't exist to you
The problem with the idealist formula is in thinking consciousness is "my consciousness"... consciousness is not yours, it is not continuous in the human nervous system (sporadic at best) and it is prior to both mind and matter...
If i can literally just sit around basking in my own happiness and love and self-satisfaction then that short-circuits all of life. That's the genius of this method. That's its power. You think this is a bug. This is not a bug. This is a feature. This is exactly what you want. You want to short circuit that because you see then it frees you up.
10:43, the neuroscientist David Hoffman would dispute this point. He argues that we haven’t evolved to see the real world, but instead evolved to perceive a kind of convenient lie. He uses the analogy of a computer. The “reality” of a computer is a bunch of 1s and 0s but few people can interpret this, so it creates an interface with convenient icons, that might not exist in “reality” but can help us navigate “reality”. Hoffman argues our perception does a very similar thing, turning the real world into an interface to aid survival. Whilst there is obviously limited evidence for this, I see no reason as to why it isn’t equally plausible to the hypothesis that we have evolved to more or less just see reality.
Well, at least on my understanding, it seems like our perceptual capacities being calibrated to the actual environment rather than some made up one involves a lot fewer assumptions. Sure, the Hoffman scenario is possible, but it seems as though the former is more likely!
@@mystiverse I’m not sure that is true. One assumption is that evolution can generate this made up interface, but this doesn’t seem like much of an assumption, it’s quite plausible evolution could do this. It pretty much does it with taste. Bitter tasting food is an example of this kind of made up interface to aid our survival. Bitter isn’t inherent in nature, but instead an evolved creation of perception to help survival, often poisonous foods are bitter. So the only added assumption is that this type of evolution is consistent across all of our perception, which I see as an equal assumption to assuming our perception is “generally” accurate.
It's probably best to apply occams razor and go with the most reasonable explanation which is direct realism. However, it's always fun and interesting to entertain ideas like idealism, but considering that it might almost inevitably lead to solipsism, it's kinda scary to take it too seriously. But maybe that's just a primal fear of not wanting everything in life to be a lie.
I’m not sure what you mean by Occam’s razor, but if you mean “the theory with the most explanatory power and least assumptions” then solipsism would be the natural choice to follow. Solipsism is by far the simplest theory since it only assumes the existence of one’s mind. Direct realism on the other hand would be the least likely theory to follow since we must also assume that there is an external world, that our senses aren’t deceiving us, that we aren’t in the matrix, etc.
Okay, but I don’t believe in god, am an idealist, and am still not solipsistic. Then again, I get the opposite of solipsism, where I’m so focused on others existences that I forget that I exist. EDIT: I also have problems with depersonalization and have lucid dreamt since I was a child. My frame of reference isn’t exactly a stable one.
If you play a videogame, you don't need to know nor perceive the 0's and 1's behind the scenes to survive and reproduce. You just have to manipulate the symbols. How symbolic is our perception and can symbolic perception lead to knowledge about the hardware?
Some philosophers do hold this view that the mind is just the software running on the hardware of the body. Of course, the software itself wouldn't know if it was running on Windows or Mac, it just runs. Our mind is a little bit like that. We know what our experience is like, but we have no clue about what's underpinning our experiences. And perhaps that's so necessarily.
What I took from this video: We can't do anything about our perception. It's not like Neo in The Matrix. That pinpoints the essence of reality, I think. So physics is not about how reality works, because we don't know anything about reality. Physical laws are merely describing how we perceive things. Tell that to Einstein.
we can.to me, ego death is equivalent to neo waking up from the matrix , you can experience that by a high dose of psychs or a decent DMT trip ,days after i had the experience i felt like a game master inside his game, pure bliss and nirvana state as everything seemed perfect and going as planned. but it didn't last, the ego is very well made to keep us immersed in the game :)
@@mystiverse that'll be tough one to explain to the police "It says here that you're too young to drink" " Idk man time is a very strange and confusing topic that should really be looked at from multiple viewpoints, now if you just bear with me..."
The tree makes a sound.. Sound is the wave not the sensation of it. The sound exixst withput no one hearing it.. Besides there is mosr likely some one hearing it anyway.. Why only humans can be observers? Okey? Got it?
Some would argue that correct (or 'veridical' in the philosophical lingo) perception is under ideal conditions of lighting, distance, etc. But then, what do we count as ideal? Why should we favour midday over midnight in terms of lighting? Why should we prefer arm's length over 1km away?
Guys let me know what you think of this.. but on my drug trips over the past months, I’m starting to think that your eyes work differently at perceiving than your brain..your brains sees things in “emotions” (for lack of a better word) and your eyes interpret the objects influenced by light.. but I think when you take drugs, perhaps you can interpret more wavelengths of light and therefore breaking the barrier between your eyes interpreting and your brain interpreting.. and then you hallucinate. So the hallucinations are physical manifestations of how your brain is interpreting the world based on how you are feeling.. does that make sense ? Or just high thoughts lol
See..we are part of external world.do not separate the perceptionist from the objects to be perceived .everything in this world are connected .once you separate an item from the set then the whole set is demolished
You’re wrong about the tree not making a sound in that sound waves, like any form of the electromagnetic spectrum, have more physical properties than merely the ability to be detected and interpreted in the way our organs evolved to do. Sound does not simply mean something our ears can hear, so sound waves do not fail to exist or have a physical effect on the world in the absence of ears to hear them. Sound waves are detected by our eardrums because they are shock waves that impact the membrane of our ears. How we interpret those shock wave impacts is up to the neurology involved on the other side of the ear drum. When a deaf person feels a symphony through bare feet on the floor, it is still sound they are responding to. If a tree falls in a forest absent of eardrums, it would still be sound that defines the waves of air that might impact nearby leaves and cause them to flutter. The existence of sound is irrelevant to how we evolved to subjectively interpret it as data.
Of course, but sound waves are different to sound. Sound waves are a primary quality, so would exist whether there was anyone there to interpret them or not. Sound, on the other hand, requires a mind. With your example of the deaf person, those sensations they feel on the ground are secondary qualities. The floor boards would still vibrate whether they were there or not, but those vibrations do not constitute the subjective feeling of the vibration. At least, that's what the indirect realists would say.
If idealism leads to solipsism, then yes. But idealists who don't think solipsism is true would have it that ideas can occur in more than one mind, so the world is shared between us. If you and me both look at the table, for instance, it'll be the same idea in both of our minds.
Hey, the youtube algorithm recommended your channel to me and I think for the first time in history it got it right. Your work is magnificent!
I also do content about philosophy and I'm having a blast here.
Much love from Brazil!
ludo por aqui? o conteúdo desse cara é fenomenal
Hey, do you think at some point you may add English subtitles to your videos? Sadly I’m not multilingual but I’d really like to check out your videos!
What is this, some type of crossover episode?
Tá andando longe o ludo
It's comforting to know that others like to think about these kinds of things. My family and friends roll their eyes most of the time if I start talking about subjects similar to this video.
How do you think my family reacted when I told them I wanted to be a philosopher, let alone a philosophy TH-camr?!
yoo same, I can't talk to anyone abt this stuff and makes me feel so alone in my thinking, most of my friends think I'm crazy and the few that listen don't ever have any input
Exurbia's sequel has been made and I'm here for it
The moment I saw the title I went to the comments looking for somebody saying that lmao
Amen
The TH-cam algorithm doesn't lie
yikes
Exurbia is a rapist
Was tripping on 4g of psilocybin last week and thought about so many things similar this video. I LOVE wanting to learn shit we really dont know, or understand. I appreciate all your content, such beautiful entertainment. Keep up that good work, you got this!
One of the things I miss about tripping. Be safe mate.
@@nickeltje its beautiful being able to learn stuff about myself, that I didn't know. I respect tripping, so I always do it safely.
Have a wonderful day mate
Greetings from shitty Indiana in the U.S💀
I took 6gs once and fapped for 6 hours straight. I've never been the same.
Where do you get that psilocybin? Need to try that.
@@Omnino_nihil-3 magic mushrooms lmao:(
Problems of perception are the result of the primacy of existence. If the universe was based on the primacy of consciousness, there would be no distinction between the perceived and the perceiver
Well, it could be considered that this distinction is an illusion. Are you sure that there's actually a "perceiver"? How can you know that it's not just about perceptions and conscious experiences on its own? Are you sure that the "perceiver" is not just another idea or perception? Because if you look at it close enough, it actually seems to be like this.
We are just a part of universe evolved to have senses crucial to exist in our tiny bubble. With perception tuned to our environment. A true preciver of the universe would have the sense of each action, either visible, morphed or invisible for humans. We can just make observations about our own senses and its flaws.
Gunwant Bhambra
How do you know we have senses? I don’t know if there is a way to tell the difference between senses and thought. How do you know an evil deceiver isn’t putting thoughts in your head and make you believe you are sending something?
@@duder6387 The brain-in-a-vat hypothesis has the same problems as the multiverse hypothesis, the Fermi Paradox, the simulation hypothesis, the belief in God: They are making too many baseless, unprovable, unfalsifiable assumptions. They are therefore *unscientific*
@@khai96x I have some issues with falsification theory. The biggest one being what’s called holistic underdetermination. Let’s say that we have a theory and then we encounter evidence which contradicts our theory, we are not required to doubt the theory, but rather we can doubt the background assumptions behind the theory. When we perform an experiment we make assumptions, we assume that our senses are working, we assume that our instruments are reliable, we assume that logic is correct, we assume that math works, etc. The issue is that we can doubt any of these assumptions before doubting our theory. If for example, I hypothesize that gravity isn’t real and then drop an object and see it fall I don’t have to doubt my hypothesis, I can doubt the validity of my senses, the validity of my instruments, the validity of my logic and so on and so forth. Let’s say I look at my instruments and see that nothing is wrong, I can then doubt my senses or I can postulate that there is something interfering with my experiment. This happened when Newtonian mechanics failed to predict Mercury’s orbit. We thought that there was some mass interfering with its orbit since something similar happened with Uranus’ orbit’s. Uranus’ orbit’s were different from what Newtonian mechanics predicted. Instead of doubting the theory they postulated that there was a planet interfering. They were correct, this led to the discovery of Neptune. In the case of Mercury, they thought that there was a planet they called “Vulcan” interfering. We never found the planet Vulcan, but how do we know that there isn’t some force interfering with Mercury’s orbit that we just don’t know about yet? Perhaps Newtonian mechanics is predicting something that general relativity can’t, we can never know for sure since we don’t have access to all the information. This makes all theories unfalsifiable since we can always doubt the background assumptions the theories are based on. For more I recommend going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and checking out its article on underdetermination.
You may think that the skeptical scenarios are baseless but so are the axioms of logic and mathematics. There is no reason why we ought to believe in the principles of logic or mathematics, they are simply sets of rules we decide to follow. If we throw out these axioms because they are baseless and untestable then we throw out all of science.
Don’t get me wrong I love science and I find it to be very useful, but I don’t see it as a form of truth or even an approximation of it.
" Crowd cheering! Standing ovation. Well presented, just bloody brilliant.
After ending the video he ran drunk naked on the streets shouting 'nothing is real'
🎶 and nothing to get hung about 🎶
Always great content!
Reminds me of the father telling the son, 'When you die, everyone dies with you'. It was from THE ROAD.
another banger vid from mystiverse? count me in
All aboard the Existential Crisis Express™
I've never been more confused at the existence of a table 😂
Were all stuck inside our own heads we cant perceive anything outside of it exactly
Yeah I do like to think that things exist outside of our minds, but what we perceive is isn't necessarily reality itself, just our subjective experience of it. Other people might see, hear or feel things differently and even moreso for other living things. Not to mention certain things can affect our perception like for example someone who has never learned the words red and blue, might not be able to perceive those colours, or rather they might perceive them in a different way.
And if you know anything about science, like quantum mechanics and stuff, you'll know that things are obviously not what they seem to us. We perceive things on a certain scale, so a table is a table to us, but if we were 1000x smaller for example, we'd perceive and think about things totally differently. Same for if we were 1000x bigger.
So yeah, in a way I like to think that everything's an illusion of the mind, but not in the sense that it doesn't exist, just that we like to think of our perception as reality, while really it's just one very specific version of it.
This gave me an 8-track flashback from 1998 from a used vintage 1968 tape and some thc that I quit in 2012 to bring it to you now in 2021 ...that is for no reason, but this comment - ''nothing is real, Strawberry fields forever''
Most of this follows right into Descartes thoughts about the validity of our perception and the evil demon argument.
One of your best works @mystiverse!
Provoking thoughts as usual, well done sir
I know this wasn’t really the point of the video but I just wanted to say that I was feeling really down and suicidal even and this video helped, with reminding me that everything is based on perception. Things aren’t always as bad or hopeless as you think and even just a slight change of perception can make you view the whole world differently. I know that’s not the point of this video but I wanted to thank you regardless
Otherwise anyway another 10/10 vid from you, you’ve become one of my favorite cc’s , keep it up , I can’t wait to see what you post in the future !
Could imagine this video with Alan watts' voice
I can't unsee it now 😵
Will hit the spot
Makes more sense in examining the rules of construction we have when putting our sensory inputs together as the signals arrive in our brain at different intervals. For example, we construct "depth" and "distance" from color and size of known objects.
Wow this was the first video I saw on ur channel all those months back when u had like 200 subs and It was the video that caused me to watch all other videos on ur channel at the time. I loved that video but I can see the improvement in this one. Well done
Thanks for sticking around!
Idealism would collapse onto solipsism if you consider consciousness to be individually divided. Panentheism, Pantheism and others assume a conscious universe, with several solutions for the combination problem. So, thatd be a bright option.
Indeed. I attended a fascinating lecture once that combined idealism with panpsychism, such that the entire universe would always watch itself, thus removing the need for God as an unperceived perceiver. It's an interesting solution to solipsism!
A great and thought provoking video. Love the music! It was used in my favourite movie. 2001 a Space Odyssey.
One thought re: the unlikelihood of the solipsism answer: have little control over our dreams too, but no-one's suggesting those are objectively real.
Wicked stuff brother! Just found your channel and am looking forward to checking out your content. Keep it up!
Just throwing it out there, changing perception is basically what the occult is all about in the end.
What occult?
@@KingKae7 Shhh don’t ask that, the shadow people in the walls might hear you.
I thought this day would be a good day but now I have accidentally given myself a reasonable argument for the existence of god and now I have to lay in my the for the rest of the day and do nothing else than thinking about it. But still, it was a really good video that thought me a new way of looking at the problem of perception.
The God problem with idealism is a tricky one. On the one hand, if God does exist and guarantees the continued existence of our ideas, then idealism essentially logically follows. But, a lot of criticism has been placed on idealism for putting God in that role in the first place. God as the 'unperceived perceiver' is pretty different from the God of Abraham, who's just chilling outside of time and space. But, of course, idealism nevertheless does remain a possibility!
@@mystiverse ikr espaicily that our biology has horrible flaws that could have been easily fixed by the all perfect all knowing smartest being in the universe aka god and espaicily he allows us to suffer while he's omnipresent and all knowing he knows exactly how u feel and think yet he allows the suffering the murdered the rape and torturing and mental illnesses of ourselves and loved ones
Of God exists
He either all knowing and all present but evil
He can be god but he's not all knowing and all present
Or he doesn't exist at all
That's actually the worst argument to prove go exists. I'd say that god doesn't exist, as all logic points to that. And the Bible also says the world is 6k years old and has things like the Noah's ark and that's an outright joke. The only thing you can't disapprove or prove is god. But if everything needs a creator, who created god. So yeah the logical answer is, the bible is fiction and god is man made. Same applies to the Qur'an. People finna cancel me for calling out the Qur'an but Idc
@@mystiverse I think that the Abrahamic God is more of a metaphorical way of describing "The Creator".
But the problem arises when you perceive the creative process as separate from yourself.
Maybe we should consider the possibility that _the Creator_ and all of creation itself is One and the same.
I’m calling it now, this channel is going to have 1 million subscribers in a month. Finally a channel for intellectuals who likes to learn stuff while they’re getting hammered. TH-cam algorithm did it again.
Eh, the learning stuff is optional.
Haven’t watched the full video but I already have a feeling this ties with creating your own realities (shoutout to those creating their own out there) and having different perceived realities, tying into law of attraction/vibration. Either way, this reality is nuts but magical.
Imagine someone born blind and deaf and quadriplegic what would his life be like never knowing reality. What would he dream of? Now imagine he regains his sight and hearing at age 30. How would he perceive reality? What are we if not awareness of sight and sound and location awareness of out bodies? Without any link to this world through our skin and eyes and ears? Who are we if not our eyes and ears? Without ever knowing this world?
This is like a way more extreme version of Molyneux's problem: plato.stanford.edu/entries/molyneux-problem/
I was hoping for speculative realism that doesn't deals with mind dependent stuff.
The line between mystiverse and exurb1a keeps on blurring...
If you haven’t already you should look up the Pyhrronian Skeptics. They have created some of the most destructive skeptical thought, I specifically am puzzled by Agrippa’s five modes or Agrippa’s/Munchaussen’s trilemma.
Yeah, Pyrrho was a wacko. Apparently he used to walk into busy streets or nearly off cliffs because he could doubt their existence. PSA: don't do that.
I am what I am not when I am alone, but with you, I am what I've never been.
6:15 ok ok, didn't know your metaphors were that advanced
In my opinion the perception of the object it's just a part of how the object really is, like my red is different from your red but are both under the same scope of visible light we call red but still there is some light that is still emitted but we just can't see. So the object is always present and we just perceive some part of it. But you know nothing matters really we just a bunch of atoms that is unlucky enough to understand it
Sometimes you get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if you look at it right ✌❤⚡💙💀🌹🔥👍👌
I’ve just accepted that this reality is just an elaborate dream and if you try to hard to make finite sense of it it falls apart in your lap because it’s job it to maintain the illusion rather than explain itself to us.
I mean we’re all the same stuff rearranged so elaborately you can’t tell. And the specific arrangements are what we consider unique experiences.
trying to explain idealism and solipsism to another human without getting your teeth punch out is a really good skill
What strikes me is odd is why would there be a split in reality between the contents of perception and that which is perceived; for example consider that the colors I see are only in my perception, whereas the apple which is in reality devoid of color, lives in a different sort of space time. Now naturally the question arises, that in what kind of space time do thoughts and perceptions about the color of the apple exist and how are they different from the space time that holds the apple. I am always tempted to take the side that there is no such split in reality, but it exists only as a philosophical point in our minds.
Great video really enjoyed this
+1 subscriber, u share great knowledge. Thank you for educating and elevating my consciousness ⚛️❤️
If the evil demon theory says that there is a being that knows every position and propulsion of every atom in the universe, is that being the universe itself for having that kind of knowledge?
Where and when is there an absolute separation between yourself and the world around you? Regardless of what rules of physics are in play, I never in my entire life felt that compartmentalized separation with absolute certainty (thank God!) and it's been key to gaining perceptions I trust. Trusting my own experience is a gift. Investment in myself, all reward. The compartmentalization without allowing a blending/melding throughout all these theories bars the truth from presenting itself.
It's true, Descartes really did cock everything up with his radical scepticism. And to be fair, some 20th century approaches like phenomenology solve a lot of the issues presented here.
Not arguing the validity of deterministic physics and it's role in mainstream concepts of consciousness. That can't be argued, 🙄! Victim-hood based consciousness IS Descarte et.al in full technicolor and on live stream NOW! My point is that even while being raised in the environment of it, it still is possible to gain and rely on a trusted source for oneself. There's no real forcing of these concepts/theories onto another person, other than by their acceptance. I'm not judging, I'm stating experientially gained knowledge, not theory or speculation either. Once something is recognized as insulting to one's senses it should be abandoned. If not, well, I remember those feelings and most live like that day after day till death. I finally put my foot down and said "No!" in totality just 3 years ago but a psychologically abusive family growing up has ended up being the alchemist gold guiding me to seek from within quite literally since birth. Anyways..."Don't accept what anyone says, not even what I say, so long as it resonates with one's soul"---Buddah
Been waiting for another upload
Ur about to blow up bro
I'm a new subscriber. I really like your videos. Both entertaining and informative. Implicit in Realism and Idealism is You the Subject. As per the video the material objects are perceived so you're not those objects (sorry Realists). Your body is observed so you're not the body. Equally, your thoughts/feelings can be observed so you're not the mind (sorry idealists and solipsists). Even the moment of comprehension Eureka is observed so you're not the Intellect. Even self-awareness, introspection is observed so you're not the conscious awareness in the Mind. So what's left? Nihilism??? No. Because even "nihilism" is observed hence you can't be a Nihilist. You're "prior" to all of that.
Indeed, this is something like the anonymous pre-reflective self-awareness of the phenomenologists! Something that we're not necessarily conscious of but is nonetheless implicit in all our actions, the fundamental condition for any experiences at all.
@@mystiverse Absolutely. But note, the Real You is that Fundamental Reality, therefore the individual you which you currently take yourself to be, is not, though it appears to be so.
That's some heavy stuff, man... you sure you haven't been hanging out with Joe Rogan too?!
@@mystiverse Hahaha. 🙂 Can your doubts be observed? If yes then you're not your doubts. If one can say that That Fundamental Reality manifests a somewhat limited conscious awareness in the mind which does all this perceiving, thinking and commenting, which also makes us feel like an individual with limited abilities then what's stopping us from knowing our true nature as That Fundamental Reality? Can we say an Ignorance of sorts?
But what about vases of self-knowledge and identity, where my consciousness takes itself as its own object? Surely then I am observing myself?
Did he say "a fleshlight is squuishhy"!?? 🤣🤣🤣
That's what I'm sayin. I was like huhhhhhh
Okay watched the rest of the video, realised tongue-in-cheek humor is his thing. I was just not expecting it from a philosophical video lmao
You can touch the table. Indirect realism is the most objective way to describe our perception. Primary qualities are absolute, no matter who percieves them
True, but aren't primary qualities also objective in idealism? You can touch the table, sure, but touch is a secondary quality, and without that, then we have no access to the table at all. If we accept the classic formulation of idealism, with God as the guarantor of our ideas, then isn't idealism just as objective?
@@mystiverse sensation of a touch is secondary, matter of fingers interacting with matter of the table is primary. The objective fact of you touching the table is a part of that sensation, even though it's a secondary quality. If you don't touch the table and take out all of the other secondary qualities then yes - table won't exist to you
@@mystiverse thanks for your videos btw, you're doing an awesome job 👍🏻
The problem with the idealist formula is in thinking consciousness is "my consciousness"... consciousness is not yours, it is not continuous in the human nervous system (sporadic at best) and it is prior to both mind and matter...
If i can literally just sit around basking in my own happiness and love and self-satisfaction then that short-circuits all of life.
That's the genius of this method. That's its power. You think this is a bug. This is not a bug. This is a feature. This is exactly what you want. You want to short circuit that because you see then it frees you up.
10:43, the neuroscientist David Hoffman would dispute this point. He argues that we haven’t evolved to see the real world, but instead evolved to perceive a kind of convenient lie.
He uses the analogy of a computer. The “reality” of a computer is a bunch of 1s and 0s but few people can interpret this, so it creates an interface with convenient icons, that might not exist in “reality” but can help us navigate “reality”. Hoffman argues our perception does a very similar thing, turning the real world into an interface to aid survival.
Whilst there is obviously limited evidence for this, I see no reason as to why it isn’t equally plausible to the hypothesis that we have evolved to more or less just see reality.
Well, at least on my understanding, it seems like our perceptual capacities being calibrated to the actual environment rather than some made up one involves a lot fewer assumptions. Sure, the Hoffman scenario is possible, but it seems as though the former is more likely!
@@mystiverse I’m not sure that is true.
One assumption is that evolution can generate this made up interface, but this doesn’t seem like much of an assumption, it’s quite plausible evolution could do this. It pretty much does it with taste. Bitter tasting food is an example of this kind of made up interface to aid our survival. Bitter isn’t inherent in nature, but instead an evolved creation of perception to help survival, often poisonous foods are bitter.
So the only added assumption is that this type of evolution is consistent across all of our perception, which I see as an equal assumption to assuming our perception is “generally” accurate.
AND real music as well.
love the vid keep it up xx
he makes the type of video's that you watch like two or three times
It's probably best to apply occams razor and go with the most reasonable explanation which is direct realism.
However, it's always fun and interesting to entertain ideas like idealism, but considering that it might almost inevitably lead to solipsism, it's kinda scary to take it too seriously. But maybe that's just a primal fear of not wanting everything in life to be a lie.
Well, there's a reason philosophers sometimes call it naïve realism instead of direct... Okham isn't always the right way to proceed!
I’m not sure what you mean by Occam’s razor, but if you mean “the theory with the most explanatory power and least assumptions” then solipsism would be the natural choice to follow. Solipsism is by far the simplest theory since it only assumes the existence of one’s mind. Direct realism on the other hand would be the least likely theory to follow since we must also assume that there is an external world, that our senses aren’t deceiving us, that we aren’t in the matrix, etc.
I do not drink. Am I therefore precluded from philosophical speculation/inquiry?...or just doomed to enjoying it less>
Have you checked out Donald Hoffman's theory of conscious agents?
Anil Seth comes to mind.
We are the materialization of contradiction.
Okay, but I don’t believe in god, am an idealist, and am still not solipsistic. Then again, I get the opposite of solipsism, where I’m so focused on others existences that I forget that I exist.
EDIT: I also have problems with depersonalization and have lucid dreamt since I was a child. My frame of reference isn’t exactly a stable one.
This video 10x my high plus ultra
If you play a videogame, you don't need to know nor perceive the 0's and 1's behind the scenes to survive and reproduce. You just have to manipulate the symbols. How symbolic is our perception and can symbolic perception lead to knowledge about the hardware?
Some philosophers do hold this view that the mind is just the software running on the hardware of the body. Of course, the software itself wouldn't know if it was running on Windows or Mac, it just runs. Our mind is a little bit like that. We know what our experience is like, but we have no clue about what's underpinning our experiences. And perhaps that's so necessarily.
Am I in the right timeline?
Perception is 1d20 + WIS
If philosophy leads to vodka, does vodka lead to philosophy?
Btw...cheers and good morning!
What I took from this video: We can't do anything about our perception. It's not like Neo in The Matrix. That pinpoints the essence of reality, I think.
So physics is not about how reality works, because we don't know anything about reality. Physical laws are merely describing how we perceive things. Tell that to Einstein.
I can't, he's dead.
we can.to me, ego death is equivalent to neo waking up from the matrix , you can experience that by a high dose of psychs or a decent DMT trip ,days after i had the experience i felt like a game master inside his game, pure bliss and nirvana state as everything seemed perfect and going as planned. but it didn't last, the ego is very well made to keep us immersed in the game :)
By the angle of that straw it was a bendy one
I meant bent as in the way an oar is bent in water, not the actual bend of the straw. I should've chosen a more transparent drink as an example!
the moment i'm old enough i'm going to do some similar drinking game with my friends
Well hey... if you've seen the video on time, you could well be a million years old! Oh, also, *for legal reasons that's a joke* 🤐🤫
@@mystiverse that'll be tough one to explain to the police
"It says here that you're too young to drink"
" Idk man time is a very strange and confusing topic that should really be looked at from multiple viewpoints, now if you just bear with me..."
Well your 21 if everyone thinks your 21
;)
There is still real LSD out there? Where?
The Netherlands
The tree makes a sound.. Sound is the wave not the sensation of it. The sound exixst withput no one hearing it.. Besides there is mosr likely some one hearing it anyway.. Why only humans can be observers? Okey? Got it?
What is accurate perception? Is there such thing as correct or proper perception?
Some would argue that correct (or 'veridical' in the philosophical lingo) perception is under ideal conditions of lighting, distance, etc. But then, what do we count as ideal? Why should we favour midday over midnight in terms of lighting? Why should we prefer arm's length over 1km away?
I'm not a brain in a vat. I'm actually a Boltzmann brain floating in space.
Ah yes, the other existentially terrifying possibility.
Very noice as always
You ever dive into Aphantasia at all?
Guys let me know what you think of this.. but on my drug trips over the past months, I’m starting to think that your eyes work differently at perceiving than your brain..your brains sees things in “emotions” (for lack of a better word) and your eyes interpret the objects influenced by light.. but I think when you take drugs, perhaps you can interpret more wavelengths of light and therefore breaking the barrier between your eyes interpreting and your brain interpreting.. and then you hallucinate. So the hallucinations are physical manifestations of how your brain is interpreting the world based on how you are feeling.. does that make sense ? Or just high thoughts lol
consistent rules perception.
Idealism could also be rescued from solipsism by an appeal to egregores.
9.41 I expected gunshot. My dissatisfaction is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Damn, a missed opportunity.
Great video man
See..we are part of external world.do not separate the perceptionist from the objects to be perceived .everything in this world are connected .once you separate an item from the set then the whole set is demolished
You’re wrong about the tree not making a sound in that sound waves, like any form of the electromagnetic spectrum, have more physical properties than merely the ability to be detected and interpreted in the way our organs evolved to do. Sound does not simply mean something our ears can hear, so sound waves do not fail to exist or have a physical effect on the world in the absence of ears to hear them. Sound waves are detected by our eardrums because they are shock waves that impact the membrane of our ears. How we interpret those shock wave impacts is up to the neurology involved on the other side of the ear drum. When a deaf person feels a symphony through bare feet on the floor, it is still sound they are responding to. If a tree falls in a forest absent of eardrums, it would still be sound that defines the waves of air that might impact nearby leaves and cause them to flutter. The existence of sound is irrelevant to how we evolved to subjectively interpret it as data.
Of course, but sound waves are different to sound. Sound waves are a primary quality, so would exist whether there was anyone there to interpret them or not. Sound, on the other hand, requires a mind. With your example of the deaf person, those sensations they feel on the ground are secondary qualities. The floor boards would still vibrate whether they were there or not, but those vibrations do not constitute the subjective feeling of the vibration. At least, that's what the indirect realists would say.
Wait, the straw isn’t bent??!
To be fair... I should've chosen a more transparent drink to illustrate the example better. The alcoholic in me overruled that possibility.
Gonk
EGO DEATH = waking up from the matrix
Idealism does not lead to Solipshism, not necessarily.
This... is a reupload isn't it?
This reminds me of Exurb1a
nice.
DMT has been around much longer than Joe rogan
Are you okay mate?
Yeah, yeah totally. Yeah.
@@mystiverse ´ok, i love you’re content
6:42 XD
Philosophy and alcoholism... name a more iconic duo
If idealism is true, doesn't that mean I invented the whole of science, history, and even this video and all your comments?
If idealism leads to solipsism, then yes. But idealists who don't think solipsism is true would have it that ideas can occur in more than one mind, so the world is shared between us. If you and me both look at the table, for instance, it'll be the same idea in both of our minds.
@@mystiverse Well that's ideal then. My turn for a shot.
Gamerrrrrrr
I happen to disagree
lol Best day of my life
Solipsism is fun. Its just not that great of a conversation starter..
I'll be here all day.
Nah, you'll merely cease to exist the moment I stop thinking about this comment.
@@mystiverse well that's not very fun for me.
*clicks* nice
Sounds like you're drinking Ouzo.
Daily dose of Solipcism